Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
Traditional methods for plaque and calculus removal involve the use of mechanical and/or manual instruments, followed by surface polishing with rubber cups and low abrasive pastes. These instruments may cause the unintended removal of hard dental tissue, such as enamel, cementum and dentine, increasing surface roughness. Moreover, they can lead to gingival recession and consequent hypersensitivity and discomfort during treatment. New minimally-invasive approaches to biofilm removal have been recently introduced with the aim to limit the negative impact on the oral tissue. Air-polishing with low-abrasiveness powders are proven suitable for both for supra- and sub-gingival plaque removal. The use of low-abrasiveness powders could lead to several advantages, such as reduction of treatment discomfort, shorter treatment time, the possibility of cleaning areas with difficult access and minor damage on soft and hard tissues.
Aim: the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the Full Mouth Erithrytol Powder Air-Polishing Therapy compared to traditional ultrasonic debridment (UD) and polishing in patient affected by gingivitis.
Test hypotesis: there is no difference in clinical outcome between two methods against the hypothesis of a difference in terms of changes in Blending on Probing (BOP).
To test this hypothesis, the patients, upon initial evaluation, were treated in split mouth:
Follow-ups are scheduled at 2 weeks and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months.
Full description
TRIAL DESIGN:
Mono-centric, pragmatic, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial (RCT) with split-mouth design. The trial will have a one year of duration.
PRIMARY OUTCOME:
SECONDARY OUTCOMES:
STUDY POPULATION:
41 Systemically healthy patients affected by gingivitis will be included in this study. Presence of gingivitis is defined as: absence of Probing pocket depth (PPD) > 4mm and presence of BoP >25%.
INCLUSION CRITERIA:
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
41 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal